Cohen, Jewish Medieval Commentary on the Book of Genesis

University of Pennsylvania Press and Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Jewish Medieval Commentary on the Book of Genesis and Modern Biblical Philology. Part I: Gen1-18 Author(s): Chaim Cohen Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 81, No. 1/2 (Jul. - Oct., 1990), pp. 1-11Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455250Accessed: 28-08-2014 10:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 192.231.59.35 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:43:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455250

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, LXXXI, Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 1990) 1-11

JEWISH MEDIEVAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS AND MODERN BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY.

PART I: GEN 1-18'

CHAIM COHEN, Ben Gurion University

ABSTRACT

In many individual cases modern biblical scholarship has (usually unknowingly) arrived at the same conclusions concerning the philological analysis of the Hebrew Bible as were reached by Jewish medieval com- mentators as early as 1000 years ago. In some instances, the internal biblical evidence relied on by the medievals is substantially the same as that which is cited by modern biblical scholars; while in other cases, where the medieval interpretation is in need offurther evidence, modern biblical philology itself may be used to provide the missing evidence (especially from ancient Near Eastern sources which were of course unavailable to the medievals). Few scholarly attempts have been made to investigate systematically and acknowledge this important philological contribution of the Jewish medieval scholars in the light of modern biblical philology. With respect to the Book of Genesis, two notable exceptions are H. M. Orlinsky, ed., Notes on the New (JPS) Translation of the Torah (Phila- delphia, 1969), and M. Weinfeld, The Book of Genesis with a New Commentary [Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv, 1975). The cases in point (Gen 1-18) are as follows: 1. Gen 4:10 (t11p, "hark")-Ibn Ezra; 2. Gen 4:13 (plY, "punishment")-Ibn Ezra and Akk. arnum; 3. Gen 7:24-8:1 (verse division)-Saadiah Gaon; 4. Gen 10:3-4 (1 Chron 1:6-7: nw'r II nvn; ani1r II

717'llr)-Radaq on 1 Chron 1:7; 5. Gen 11:28 ("ID 1Y, "during the lifetime of. . . ")-Rashi; 6. Gen 14:6 ( :V3V n-'1T1'T, "in the mountainous country of Seir")-Ibn Jandh (the phenomenon of the enclitic mem in BH); 7. Gen 14:10 ( *V 10'1, "they threw themselves down therein ")-Ibn Ezra and Akk. maqatu; 8. Gen 18:10, 14 (rT'fl nfD, [at this time] next year")-Saadiah Gaon, Ibn Jandh, Rashi, and Ibn Ezra, and Akk. ana balat.

1 This paper was originally presented on May 15, 1989, as part of the colloquium entitled "Translations of Scriptures," held at the Annenberg Research Institute in Philadelphia. The present published form differs from the original one only in the inclusion of references to N. Sarna's new commentary on Genesis (see immediately below) and a few other minor changes.

BK I/ I C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976) BK 1/2 C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981)



2 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This article is both a continuation of my previous study, "Ele- ments of Peshat in Traditional Jewish Bible Exegesis,"2 and part of my ongoing research in preparation of a new selective commentary on the Book of Genesis to be entitled Comparative Phi- lology and the Book of Genesis.3 No attempt has been made here to include quantitatively even the majority of the numerous important insights on Genesis made by the Jewish medieval scholars which have a bearing on modern biblical text criticism. Rather, I have endeavored to exemplify this important contribution by selec- tively citing some of their most incisive comments which have been largely ignored by modern biblical scholarship,4 even though they

Cassuto M. D. Cassuto, NrV1b:1 DD V11Y n (Jerusalem, 1965) Derenbourg J. Derenbourg, ed., Version arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia

ben Iosef al-Fayyoumi (Paris, 1893) Driver S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London, 1913). Ehrlich A. B. Ehrlich, vol. 1 -;TlrI ,10u1VO W1jM (New York, 1969) Orlinsky H. M. Orlinsky, ed., Notes on the New Translation of the Torah

(Philadelphia, 1969) Qafih Y. Qafih, Mi11rn? pn Y JIM r11Y " 1':11 'V171D (Jerusalem, 1963) Sarna N. M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Phila-

delphia, 1989) Skinner J. Skinner, Genesis (Edinburgh, 1930) Speiser E. A. Speiser, Genesis (New York, 1964) Strickman H. N. Strickman and A. M. Silver, Ibn Ezra's Commentary on

the Pentateuch: Genesis (New York, 1988) Weinfeld M. Weinfeld, uVrrn UV-11D 13Y I X':1 1O (Tel Aviv, 1975)

I would here like to thank especially my daughter Aliza Batya Cohen for helping me to gather some of the data for the present study.

2 Immanuel 21 (1987): 30-42. 3 The title is intentionally reminiscent of J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the

Old Testament (Oxford, 1969), in order to highlight the vast difference between the two approaches (see my methodological study "The 'Held Method' for Compara- tive Semitic Philology," which is to appear shortly in the JANES Held Memorial Volume). Some of the material in the form of general conclusions has already been published in n1u1"IY l 1Y (Ramat Gan, 1982). In this selective commentary all the evidence for the aforementioned conclusions will be documented in addition to other completely new material.

4 Two noteworthy exceptions are the NJPS translation of the Hebrew Bible, the separate volume of notes to that translation (cited here as Orlinsky), and M. Wein- feld's excellent commentary on the Book of Genesis (intended for Israeli high school students; cited here as Weinfeld). Here it may be noted in passing that it is a



JEWISH MEDIEVAL COMMENTARY ON GENESIS-COHEN 3

often lead essentially to the same textual conclusions as those espoused by many biblical scholars today. Where the interpretations themselves are well known and accepted in modern biblical scholarship but the medievals have not been credited for their innovations,5 the Jewish medieval source(s) will be cited together with a concise discussion and bibliography. Where the medieval interpretation is in need of further evidence, an attempt will be made to demonstrate that modern biblical philology may itself be used to provide the missing evidence (especially from ancient Near Eastern sources which were of course unavailable to the medievals).

1. Gen 4:10 b1p, "hark." The term b1p cannot be understood here in the construct form (i.e., "the voice of") because in such a case the plural form D'Y12TU ("cry out") would have been replaced by the singular pYT! (cf. e.g., Exod 19:19). Rather "the blood (pl.) of your brother" is the referent of UzpYU, while b1p should be taken as an "exclamation, at beginning of clause," best translated "hark!"6 This usage of h'p is found elsewhere in such verses as Isa 52:8, Jer 10:22, Song 2:8-9, 5:2, and may be considered as a

shame that the NJPS translators, who have produced what is rapidly becoming accepted as the best overall English translation of the Hebrew Bible, were unable to find a way (except in a very small number of cases) to indicate their indebtedness to the medieval Jewish scholars in footnotes to specific verses in the translation itself, and instead relegated such acknowledgements to the much less widely read separate volume of notes. Perhaps a way may be found to rectify this situation in future editions of the NJPS translation.

5 Of course, there are some instances where Jewish medieval interpretations have been both accepted and duly acknowledged by modern biblical scholarship, but these cases are relatively few. Some primary examples in the Book of Genesis would include (a) Rashi and Ibn Ezra on the syntactical structure of Gen 1:1, X:1 IVW1:1 13lM* "When God began to create" (cf., e.g., Skinner, pp. 13-15); (b) Ibn Ezra on Gen 12:6 and 13:7, r X:[ [V] M ['17DnM] 2Y2:lm, "The Canaanites [and the Periz- zites] were then [dwelling] in the land" (concerning the authorship of the Torah- cf., e.g., Speiser, p. 87 and the bibliography there); (c) Ibn Ezra on Gen 49:6ab (concerning the parallelistic structure-cf., e.g., J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry [New Haven and London, 1981], pp. 174-175; E. L. Greenstein, "Medieval Bible Commentaries," in Back to the Sources, ed. B. W. Holtz [New York, 1984], p. 218); (d) Rashbam on Gen 49:22 (concerning "staircase" parallelism-cf., e.g., S. E. Loewenstamm, "The Expanded Colon in Ugaritic and Biblical Verse," in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures [Neukirchen- Vluyn, 1980], p. 281; cf. Ibn Ezra on this verse as well).

6 BDB 877a, with reference to GK ?146b.




generally accepted conclusion in biblical scholarship.7 Only in the companion volume of notes to the NJPS translation of the Torah is this interpretation correctly attributed to Ibn Ezra.8 Here it may be added that the main textual evidence for the existence of this interjection is two-fold: a) the grammatical evidence of such passages as Gen 4:10, Isa 52:8, and Jer 10:22, where in each case the relevant verbal form is not masculine singular and therefore is not in agreement with hp "voice (of)"; b) the contextual evidence of Isa 52:8, Song 2:8-9 and 5:2, where, in the first verse, taking b1p as the subject is impossible not only for grammatical reasons (see a, immediately above) but also because the verbal idiom which would then be associated with b1p is b1p MM, which includes the word b1p and should be translated here "to acclaim,"9 while in the latter two cases, bip certainly cannot be the subject of bY yDP IM t; t 1 ln nfl?s:z, "leaping over mountains, bounding over hills" in Song 2:8 (as this would also be a direct contradiction of verse 9), nor can it logically be the subject of i'MI ("knocking") in Song 5:2. Not only was Ibn Ezra the first to suggest this interpretation at Gen 4:10 but he even cites Song 2:8 as a precedent!

2. Gen 4:13 M1V2?M 'fY " ?rr1, "my punishment is too great to bear." As first noted by Ibn Ezra, who cites such excellent prece- dents as 1 Sam 28:10 and Lam 4:6,10 the term 7pY cannot be understood in its regular meaning "iniquity" in this verse, for the meaning would then have to be "my iniquity is too great (for God) to forgive," based on the idiom pIY nxv, "to forgive an iniquity" (e.g.,

7 Cf. e.g., Skinner, p. 108; Driver, p. 66; NJPS, p. 8; New English Bible (NEB), p. 5; Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, p. 1015a (and the bibliography mentioned there); Speiser, p. 29 (without comment); Sarna, pp. 34 and 354, n. 10. Contra BK I/ 1, 385 (n. 10a); Weinfeld, p. 21 (his solution surely would not work in the passages besides Gen 10:4 mentioned here-cf. especially Isa 52:8 and Song 2:8-9, 5:2, where hip simply makes no sense as subject of the clause).

8 Orlinsky, pp. 68-69. For an English translation of Ibn Ezra's commentary on this passage, see Strickman, pp. 83-84.

9 Cf. H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (Missoula, 1978), p. 99, n. 298. Here it should be noted that the poor emendation in Isa 52:8 (tD for MT h1p!) suggested by C. Westermann must be re- jected out of hand. See C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (Philadelphia, 1969), p. 249, n. a.

10 Gen 15:16 is also cited, but this is best understood as "iniquity"; see, e.g., Rashi on this verse, followed by Driver, pp. 177-178.




Exod 34:7, Num 14:18, Ps 85:3). This meaning does not fit in with the next verse which speaks of the enormity not of the iniquity but of the resultant punishment. In Ibn Ezra's own words, 'D UYUlol xn;n piOmoi wtri-voi ;nTi mnx re -o-igi *-=n n5nx x35 Rni w nyo ; tT nn'1rr, "The meaning of our verse is thus my punishment (D1Y) is greater than I can bear (KflL7z)." The next verse substantiates this interpretation." While this interpretation is generally accepted in modern biblical criticism,12 only Cassuto and Weinfeld mention that this was originally suggested by Ibn Ezra."3 Here it may be added that this second idiom 1pY nxve', "to bear the punishment of an iniquity" (as distinct from the aforementioned first idiom nxlve 1pY, "to forgive an iniquity"), occurs also in legal contexts as 1V1Y KI', "he will bear the punishment of his crime" (Lev 5:1, 17; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17) and is semantically equivalent to Akkadian arna(m) nasu14 in such contexts as the Code of Hammurapi ??4, 13, aran dTnim su'aiti ittanassi, "he will bear the punishment of that case." In fact, the three main Akkadian terms for "crime, iniquity," namely hftu(m), arnu(m), and gillatu(m) (in ascending order of severity, corresponding respectively to BH Kvr1 flY, and YVD) each occur with the additional meaning "punishment, fine" (for the respective type of crime involved).1 This usage for h1lu(m) and gillatu(m) may best be demonstrated by Gilgamesh XI:180, bel hTtil6 emid whgtasu bel gillati emid gillassu "on the criminal, impose the penalty for his crime; on the transgressor, impose the penalty for his transgression." This line corresponds to Atrahasis III:vi:25:

" Strickman, p. 85. 12 E.g., BDB 731; Driver, p. 66; HALAT, p. 756; BK I/1, pp. 384, 420-421;

Speiser, pp. 29, 31; Weinfeld, p. 22; NJPS, p. 8; NEB, p. 5; Ehrlich, p. 16; Skinner, p. 109. Contrast, e.g., Cassuto, p. 150 (who at least does credit this interpretation to Ibn Ezra, even though he rejects it). Note also that Sarna contends that the text is ambiguous here and could also be rendered "My sin is too great to be forgiven" or "Is my sin too great to be forgiven?" (Sarna, pp. 34 and 355, n. 12). As first noted by Ibn Ezra (see in the text above), it is the context of the next verse which precludes these other possibilities.

3 Cassuto, p. 150; Weinfeld, p. 22. 14 See, e.g., Weinfeld, p. 22. 15 See e.g., CAD, A/2, pp. 297-299; CAD, H, pp. 211-212; and the bibliography

cited there. 16 Variant: arni.




[bel arn] im sukun s'eretka "on the criminal, impose your penalty,"17 where s'ertu(m) is one of the regular Akkadian terms for "penalty, punishment." 18

3. Gen 7:24-8:1 verse division. That Gen 7:24-8:1 must be looked upon as a single verse has been noted by several scholars. 19

Only in the companion volume of notes to the NJPS translation of the Torah is it indicated that Saadiah Gaon,20 in his tenth-century translation, was the first to translate these two verses together as protasis and apodosis of a single verse, "for 7:24 is actually the protasis ('when...'), of which 8:1 is the apodosis (='then'), as already recognized by Saadiah in his Judeo-Arabic translation of the Torah: 'And when (wa-lammd) the waters ... God remem- bered (dhakara Allahu) Noah. . .'-the whole (7:24 and 8:1) con- stituting a single sentence." 21

4. Gen 10:3-4 // I Chron 1:6-7 ri'7//ri' ;D'11//DTr17. While most scholars who have commented on this verse have noted the variants in 1 Chron 1:6-7 and the '7//l orthographical inter- change,22 no modern commentator seems to have realized the sig- nificance of Qimhi's (Radaq) commentary on 1 Chron 1:7 with regard to this issue. For a translation and discussion of the relevant section of his commentary see my previous article, "Elements of Peshat in Traditional Jewish Bible Exegesis."23

5. Gen 11:28 ''D *, "during the lifetime of." Most scholars, usually relating to both Gen 11:28 and Num 3:4,24 translate this

17 See W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-fHasrs (Oxford, 1969), pp. 100- 101; J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia, 1982), p. 221. The translation of Gilg. XI:180 in the latter study should be corrected accordingly.

8 See, e.g., Akkadisches Handworterbuch (AHw), p. 1218. 19 E.g., B. Vawter, On Genesis (New York, 1977), p. 126; Speiser, p. 49; NEB,

p. 8; NJPS, p. 12; Orlinsky, p. 77. Sarna claims that Gen 8:24 "may introduce the next chapter or close the preceding" (Sarna, p. 56).

20 Qafih, p. 20, Derenbourg, p. 14, n. 3. 21 Orlinsky, p. 77. On the lateness of the chapter-verse division of the Hebrew

text (probably early thirteenth century CE), see Orlinsky, pp. 20-22 and the bibliography cited there.

22 E.g., Orlinsky, p. 81; NJPS, p. 15; BHS; Skinner, pp. 197, 199; Weinfeld, p. 49; Cassuto, pp. 131, 132; BK I/ 1, pp. 665, 678; Driver, pp. 116-117; Speiser, pp. 64, 66; HALA T, pp. 206, 212; BDB pp. 187, 193, 922, 937; Sarna, pp. 71 and 357, n. 6 (with reference to Rashi's commentary on Job 15:24).

23 Immanuel 21 (1987): 40. 24 Gen 11:28 and Num 3:4 are the only two cases of the temporal usage of this

prepositional phrase. For the many other usages of '23 '?P see, e.g., BDB pp. 818- 819; HA LA T, p. 890.




prepositional phrase either as "during the lifetime of"25 or "in the presence of."26 Since both cases represent notes within genealogi- cal listings pertaining to chronologically pertinent situations in which the father outlives his adult son (Gen 11:28), and the two remaining High Priest's sons officiate as members of the priesthood during their father's lifetime and under his supervision (Num 3:4), it seems apparent that "during the lifetime of X" is much more appropriate in these two contexts, implying "while X was still alive."27 Only in the companion volume of notes to the NJPS translation of the Torah is this interpretation correctly attributed to Rashi.28

6. Gen 14:6 1'YU n-'1111, "in the mountainous country of Seir." Several scholars have adopted this slight emendation and subsequent interpretation since it was first suggested by W. L. Moran in 1950.29 It is based on the assumption that the mem at the end of the word 01?11, is not a 3m plural possessive suffix, but rather an enclitic mem unrecognized by the Masoretes.30 The strongest case for this emendation has been made by D. A. Robert- son as follows:3' "Lexically, the plural of har, 'mountain,' can be used to designate 'hill country, mountain district, mountain range,' etc., but in such cases it is always in a bound phrase. Contextually, the 3mpl suffix is not employed elsewhere in this list of peoples conquered by Chedorlaomer and his allies. Textually, the Sam G (followed by V), and S all read the bound plural. Since reading the suffix would not produce syntactical problems in either Greek or Syriac, there is good reason to assume that the Hebrew texts they

25 E.g., Weinfeld, p. 56 (who also compares MH nI:2' IM and nI:2V' "M ? ); Speiser, pp. 77, 78; NJPS, pp. 17, 207; Orlinsky, pp. 84, 226; Erhlich, pp. 31, 247; BDB p. 818b; Skinner, p. 236; Driver, p. 140; HALAT, p. 890a (only with respect to Gen 11:28); Cassuto, p. 185.

26 E.g., Ibn Ezra on Gen 11:28 (he contends that this is the meaning in Num 3:4 as well); NEB, pp. 12, 147; HALA T, p. 890a (only with respect to Num 3:4).

27 This point is correctly emphasized by Ehrlich, p. 31. 28 Orlinsky, p. 84. Rashi interprets simply T1': n2, "during his father's life-

time." Note also the translation of this phrase in the Peshitta. 29 W. L. Moran, "The Putative Root 'tm in Isaiah 9:18," CBQ 12 (1950): 154;

H. D. Hummel, "Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew," JBL 76 (1957): 92; D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Missoula, 1972), p. 81; Weinfeld, p. 71.

30 The additional yod in the emended form ?:-'i would thus be a mere mater lectionis and would therefore not reflect a consonantal emendation.

3' Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, p. 81.




translated did not contain it. Therefore the evidence favors reading with Moran bhrr-m s'yr, 'in the hill country of Seir."' None of these scholars have recognized, however, that the phenomenon on which this interpretation is based-the existence of the enclitic mem in BH, usually assumed to have been discovered by H. L. Ginsberg in 1936 (after he discovered it in Ugaritic one year earlier)32-was in fact already theoretically established by the bril- liant medieval Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer Jonah ibn Janah, some 900 years before the Ugaritic writings were unearthed in our own century.33 This revelation was made by my revered teacher, M. Held; I have published it in his name and discussed it in detail in two previous articles.34

7. Gen 14:10 VZV 17f1, "they threw themselves down therein." Several scholars have recognized that 5m, "to fall," has a reflexive and voluntary nuance in this and other contexts (e.g., Gen 17:3; 33:4; 45:14; 46:29; Num 16:4).35 As opposed to such attestations as Esth 7:8, where the accidental falling of Haman on the queen's couch just at the worst possible time is an essential ironic element

32 H. L. Ginsberg, "Notes on 'The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods,"' Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1935): 46-47 (with respect to the existence of the enclitic mem in Ugaritic); idem, Kitve Ugarit (Jerusalem, 1936), p. 130 (in modern Hebrew with respect to the existence of the enclitic mem in BH). The first English publication of Ginsberg's discovery in BH (with respect to Ps 29:6) was in his "A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter," Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti (1935) [Rome, 1938], p. 474.

3 Jonah ibn Janah, Sefer ha-Riqmah, ed. M. Wilensky (Jerusalem, 1964),1:235, lines 13-19, and 360, lines 4-6. My English translation may be found in Cohen, "Elements of Peshat," p. 38.

3 Cohen, "Elements of Peshat," pp. 37-39; idem, "On the Research Concerning the Enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible from Jonah ibn Janah until H. L. Ginsberg," Alon Uziel Memorial Volume [Hebrew; in press]. Here it may be added that in both of my aforementioned articles, I refer not only to Ibn Janah's phrase D"t?-r In'I, "the mem is pushed aside," but also to Ibn Ezra's phrase 1jO1] O"3n, "additional mem," in his grammatical treatise Sefer ha-Mo'znayim (with respect to Deut 33:11), as both referring to the phenomenon of the enclitic mem. I have now discovered that Ibn Ezra did not restrict his usage of the term 9O13 D'"7 to an additional mem only at the end of the word (as in Deut 33:11), but employed it also for an additional mem at the beginning of the word (see Ibn Ezra's commentary on Gen 49:20 [lWV:]. Therefore, while Ibn Ezra's additional mem did include the enclitic mem, it was not restricted to it (as opposed to the definition of Ibn Janah which was indeed limited to the enclitic mem as understood today).

35 E.g., Weinfeld, p. 72; Speiser, pp. 99, 102; NJPS, p. 20; Orlinsky, p. 87; Sarna, pp. 107 and 359, n. 15. Contrast, e.g., NEB, p. 14.




of the narrative, the context of Gen 14:10 is that of the two kings intentionally throwing themselves down into the nearest place of refuge in order to escape.36 That Ibn Ezra was the first to make this distinction and correctly apply it to the present context has been mentioned only by Weinfeld and Sarna and in the companion volume of notes to the NJPS translation of the Torah.37 In Ibn Ezra's own words in his commentary to Gen 14:10, "'And they fell there': they deliberately fell there in their desire to escape. 'And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face' (Num 16:4) is similar."38 Now, Weinfeld39 has added that this semantic distinction is also present with respect to Akkadian maqdtu, "to fall," the Akkadian interdialectal equivalent of BH bM. What has not been noted, however, is that Ibn Ezra's specific comment on BH *D'1 in Gen 14:10 is in complete accord (in an almost uncanny way) with the Akkadian usage of maqdtu as exhibited in CAD!40 When discussing the meaning of "to throw oneself down," CAD divides the relevant passages into two sections: "1' in gen" and "2' as a gesture of greeting and homage." The first section contains passages parallel in usage to Gen 14:10, such as ana suzub napsatisu ana Puratte imqut, "in order to save his life, he threw himself into the Euphrates"-AKA 351 iii 19 (Asn). The second section42 contains numerous passages which parallel the usage of bM in Num 16:4. Thus the Akkadian usage of maqdtu provides excellent corroboratory evidence for this usage of bm, "to throw oneself down" as first suggested by Ibn Ezra.

8. Gen 18:10, 14 MMI MYr, "[at this time] next year." The meaning of the idiom mbn 1: "[at this time] next year" (Gen 18:10, 14; 2 Kings 4:16, 17) has been known to modern biblical scholarship43

36 Just as "the rest escaped to the hill country," according to the last three words of Gen 14:10.

3 Weinfeld, p. 72; Orlinsky, p. 87; Sarna, p. 359, n. 15 (with reference to both Ibn Ezra and Hizquni).

38 Translation is according to Strickman, p. 165. 39 Weinfeld, p. 72. 40 CAD, M/I, pp. 242b-243a. 41 CAD, M/I, p. 242b. 42 CAD, M/I, pp. 242b-243a. 43 E.g., Weinfeld, p. 98; BK 1/2, pp. 339-340; C. Cohen, `,Pn ny:l," Encyclo-

paedia 'Olam ha-Tanakh: Genesis (Ramat-Gan, 1982), pp. 122-123; M. Held, "Studies in Biblical Lexicography in the Light of Akkadian: Part Two," [Hebrew] Studies in Bible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 104, n. 2.




since 1962, when both R. Yaron44 and 0. Loretz45 compared it to the semantically equivalent Akkadian idiom ana balat, "next year."46 Thus, for example, in Babylonian Wisdom Literature 38:1 (Ludlul II) we read sattamma! ana balat adannu Tteq, "[from] this year [until] the next year, the period of time had passed."47 What has not been sufficiently emphasized is that 1) this Akkadian evidence is not the only evidence for this meaning, but is in fact the decisive corroboratory evidence which complements the internal evidence in the Bible itself, namely the equating of Vfl MD with the phrase nMnX; tMVM, "next year," in the parallel narrative, Gen 17:21;48 2) among the medievals, Saadiah Gaon, Ibn Janah, Rashi, and Ibn Ezra had each already made use of this internal biblical evidence in their own day to arrive at precisely the same

44 R. Yaron, "i1in nF:i and 'nrb 7n," VT 12 (1962): 500-501. Note that the con- nection with 'nrb 70 (1 Sam 25:6) is far from certain precisely because there is no independent internal biblical evidence in this case as there is for 71n11 nPD. Further- more, there is apparently no similar usage of Akkadian ana balat as a greeting (= the context of 1 Sam 25:6). Mixing the Akkadian semantically equivalent idiom with a possible general Arabic literary parallel, as Yaron does (following D. Yellin and G. R. Driver) is questionable, to say the least. More evidence is needed in this case. Note also that Yaron does not even mention the internal biblical evidence of Gen 17:21 and therefore does not truly appreciate the medieval commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra (which he does cite), who both explain T1n nI:1 in the light of that verse as nInK1 T7Vfl IXTl IIn5:, "at this time next year" (Ibn Ezra) and nI:1

IXr1nr 71V' MnXM, "at this time in the coming year" (Rashi). The fact that they both add midrashic elements does not detract from the fact that their basic interpretations of i1n nF1:5 are indeed correct.

45 0. Loretz, "7111 n1:)-'wie jetzt ums Jahr,' Gen 18:10," Biblica 43 (1962): 75-78. As opposed to Yaron, Loretz does emphasize the importance of the internal biblical evidence from Gen 17:21 (p. 75). He then uses the Akkadian evidence to demonstrate how 1'11n nsY can mean philologically what Gen 17:21 demonstrates it must mean contextually. Loretz also gives credit to Rashi and Ibn Janah.

46 See the passages listed in CAD, B, pp. 46a, 51b-52a; AHw, p. 99a. Note especially the bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexicographical text HEh. 2: 193-194 (cited in CAD, B, p. 46a) and the bilingual Akkadian-Hittite texts (cited in CAD, B, p. 5 ib), all of which are discussed in detail by Loretz, "Vfl nI:," pp. 77-78 and n. 5. See also most recently BK 1/2, p. 339.

47 For this corrected reading of BWL 38:1, see CAD, B, p. 52; CAD, A/I, p. lOlb; AHw, p. 1200.

48 The equation ni-lr rtYV (Gen 18:10, 14) = rnlkrNn NMIV (Gen 17:21) is made demonstrably clearer by the usage of the term r57Y1?, "at the season," in both Gen 18:14 and Gen 17:21. A better statement of the equation might well be lY1?n

ni IIY: ... (Gen 18:14) = nrnirN rUV= r1r 7Ynt (Gen 17:21), "at this time in the coming year."




connotation as that arrived at by modern biblical criticism as a result of the Akkadian comparison.49 Thus, this case is a prime example of how modern biblical criticism may in effect sometimes make use of the new tools at its disposal not to innovate, but rather to decisively substantiate some of the insights first suggested by the Jewish medieval scholars.

49 Rashi and Ibn Ezra are mentioned by Cohen and Yaron (see nn. 43 and 44 above); Rashi and Ibn Janah are referred to by Loretz (see n. 45 above); Saadiah Gaon is quoted by M. Held (see n. 43 above). Saadiah Gaon's contribution to this issue may be found in his translation of 77'17 nsY in Gen 18:10, 14 as l7IXIP D, "next year" (see Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 26). Ibn Janah's contribution may be located in his Arabic work The Book of Roots, translated into Hebrew by Judah ibn Tibbon, ed. W. Bacher (Berlin, 1896), p. 150, where he translated 77'17 ns as MCM71W: 1 ;V, "for next year."

CORRECTION

The editors apologize for an error which appeared in JQR 80 (1989): 11, in the transcription of a fragment of Saadiah Gaon's Sab'Tn lafzah. Line 2 should read 1XID1 without a preceding bet, as seen in the MS photograph on p. 4.



Documents

Cohen, Jewish Medieval Commentary on the Book of Genesis